[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Rex: > > But even if all these 210 cmavo were deemed worth preserving, some of them > > are so obscure as to not deserve to eat up precious short-word space. So > > not all function words should literally be little words. > > > Quite so. So the question is, how to define function-word shape so as to > effectuate this. If we have CV(V), we have at least 13x9 (assuming minimal > allowance for vowel pairs), or 117. At the same time, we lose the use of > CV(V) predicates, which can be very handy for high-frequency morphemes. > If we go with PV(V), [P for plosive} we have only 6x9, or 54, and we have > to make an exception to the rule for Cai or something to enable letter > names. > Or, finally, we could go with PV(V)(V), which would increase it > considerably, depending on what vowel-triplets were allowed. Still we'd > have the letter-name exception, though. I'd say that associating part of speech with a particular CV pattern is too restrictive. For the very short and high frequency words, there need be no patterning of form and function at all, as these are basic words to be learnt right at the outset. For longer and lower frequency words, some patterning of form and function could be useful, but it could involve particular Cs and particular Vs, rather than tying up whole CV templates. --And.